[Standards] Discussion venue Re: e2e privacy for XMPP Re: RFC 3923 (e2e with S/MIME) and OpenPGP
Carlo v. Loesch
CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Wed Nov 20 13:01:18 UTC 2013
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:39:50AM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre:
> > But these days the threat model has changed and I think we need to
> > go beyond merely "open" to "trusted". Yes, trust is a slippery
> > concept, but in my mind it's connected to things like hardware
> > (e.g., PNRGs), build processes, transparency of releases, community
> > governance, software that does what the user intends and no more,
> > etc. This is something bigger than any particular technology, so
> > this list might not be the best place to discuss it. Maybe a blog
> > post or new discussion venue is in order...
> There are quite a few existing venues for subsets of these topics or
> aspects. But none of them so far seems to be appropriate for all of them.
stpeter didn't mean a physical venue... and since he just described
exactly what youbroketheinternet.org is about, he might come over.
Of course it is useful to open some minds and update some thinking.
> I had hoped that the "assembly" which is being organized for 30C3 in
> Hamburg at the end of this year might be a venue but it also is only
> about a subset by explicitly rejecting interoperability with
> federation based approaches. And for the current organisers improving
> existing open standards also is off-topic.
If you don't accept social graph protection as a more important
priority than interoperability, then you should stay with XMPP and
don't disturb people that have chosen a different set of priorities
(which by the tone of the messages you send to our lists you seem
to be doing).
> At the same time I am generally not in favor of creating new venues if
> existing ones can be used by extending their charter.
> Something for FOSDEM 2014 ?
Well, there are tons of places to discuss how to make open standards
more open and more standard. CCC is the place that considers that
kind of talk hacker-incompatible since hackers act for the people,
not for the corporations involved in open standards procedures.
Hackers are for "free" - not "open."
More information about the Standards